Questões de Vestibular ESPM 2019 para Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ

Foram encontradas 80 questões

Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795057 Inglês


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




In its opening, the article:

Alternativas
Q1795058 Inglês


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




The word happenstance, boldface in paragraph 4, can be replaced by all words below, except:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795059 Inglês


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




According to the article:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795060 Inglês


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




The article states that:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795061 Inglês


Yesterday misunderstands what made the Beatles so popular


By Noah Berlatsky


    The film Yesterday has an intriguing premise: What if the Beatles never existed? Unsuccessful, moderately talented singersongwriter Jack Malik wakes up one day and is the only one who remembers the Beatles’ songs. Suddenly he can pose as the creator of the greatest music ever written. As a result, he quickly becomes a worldrenowned superstar.

    Jack is successful because the Beatles’ songs, removed from their original context, still maintain the universal, instant appeal that has canonized them in our non-fictional world, offscreen. Label execs, other musicians, and huge numbers of fans are all won over by “Jack’s” music; Even decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, “Back in the USSR” still rocks people’s world.
    But would “Back in the USSR” really be an automatic, surefire hit if it were released today, into a music scene whose interests have evolved far beyond the Beatles? Is quality in the arts so transcendent that it can overcome all differences of era, culture, and happenstance? Is music a meritocracy — an art form that privileges natural talent over everything else?
    There’s good reason to believe that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Wonderful songs aren’t always hits; talented musicians don’t always achieve success commensurate with their abilities. 
    And sometimes a twist of fate lands the less talented in a position to reap massive rewards. 
    We tend to expect that good things don’t always come to the most deserving people. Sometimes the most successful people get that way because they’re in the right place at the right time, or know the right people, or were even born into it. And art is no exception.
    There’s research to back up the notion that fame and fortune come from more than pure talent. Sociologists Matthew Salganik of Princeton and Duncan Watts of Microsoft have conducted a number of studies to determine what makes a song popular. They discovered that when someone approaches a song knowing only that it’s popular and well-liked within the cultural mass, that person is more inclined to come away liking the song too. This can create a ripple effect, with songs becoming more and more popular because they already are popular. Salganik and Watts’s research suggests that the more visible something is the more highly regarded it is, and the more popular it is likely to become.
    Social influence has a powerful effect on which songs become popular. As art is a form of communication we often share and experience socially, it makes sense that we like art that we believe will connect us to others.
    Our instincts to spread what we like, and to like what others like, mean that what seem like small advantages for a song — perhaps a well-placed promo on Spotify, or appearing on the soundtrack of a Netflix show — can lead to a big chart presence. A good review at the right time or being used in a viral meme on a slow news day could help more people discover a song just out of happenstance. Songs that get an initial bump can ride that wave, so more people seek them out, buy them, and boost their popularity. This cycle can lead to one song, good or not, becoming a hit, while another disappears into obscurity.
    The Beatles were very good by most qualitative metrics. But the band’s quantitative achievements don’t mean they are indisputably the most meritorious musicians of all time, or even of their day. More likely, the band also managed to be in the right place at the right time, on top of everything else.
    Western racial inequalities also stymied many homegrown artists. Influential African American singers and girl groups like the Shirelles didn’t have much opportunity to turn their Billboard hits into widespread celebrity and lasting cultural recognition. Paul McCartney and John Lennon are household names, but there aren’t many casual music fans who know the name of the Shirelles’ lead singer, Shirley Owens.
    The Beatles were white, male English speakers who were able to tour and didn’t die young. But they had other advantages as well. Perhaps most obviously, they were working in a genre that was broadly popular. 
    By contrast, today’s most popular music is split between contemporary hip-hop and dance music that relies on synthesizers, electronics, and myriad crossgenre references. Pure rock ’n’ roll, built on a simple four-person setup of guitar, bass, drums, and vocals, is no longer the dominant genre. ”If a Beatles song came out today, it would sound dated,” Charlie Harding, host of Vox’s Switched on Pop podcast, told me. “There are hardly any synthesizers. It’s all live drumming. Plus, so much of their music is blues-based, and blues-based music just isn’t popular right now.”
    At their height, the Beatles famously pushed boundaries in the studio, creating psychedelic effects and soundscapes that no one at the time had ever heard before. But that’s old hat in 2019. You can do all of what the Beatles did and more in your room with a laptop, at least technically speaking.
   Sure, it’s fun to think, as Yesterday does, that our love for the Beatles is universal, true, and incontrovertible. Where’s the harm in that?
    The problem is that people often don’t see the myth of meritocracy as a myth; they really believe in it. And when they do, it can have some unfortunate effects. The myth of meritocracy can make us less willing to invest in the collective good. 
    If we convince ourselves that talented artists like the Beatles will be successful no matter what, we can also convince ourselves that we don’t really need to provide people with safety nets or resources. After all, the best will win out anyway. Why invest in school arts programs, or fund arts grants, if great musicians will be just fine on their own?
    The Beatles made wonderful, undoubtedly influential art. But if Yesterday weren’t so hypnotized by the supposedly unmatchable quality of the Beatles’ music, it might be able to see that there are great songs being written by people like Jack Malik too. The film believes that songs like “Yesterday” are just so good, they would become mega-popular under any circumstances. And yet many people who think “Yesterday” is the best song ever have been inevitably swayed by the Beatles’ popularity and legacy, the song’s quality aside.
    Maybe instead, the best song ever is one we haven’t heard yet; maybe it’s the one you’re going to write. Part of what happens when we abandon the myth of meritocracy is that we’re better able to see the merit all around us. And that gives everyone a greater chance at success.

(adapted from https://www.vox.com, Jun 29, 2019)




For Noah Berlatsky, when we realize that meritocracy is a myth,
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795062 Inglês

4 Types of Deceptive Advertising


By Apryl Duncan


    Deceptive advertising is officially defined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as “practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. Specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations. 

    However, it’s important to note that deceptive advertising does not represent the entire industry, and makes up a very small percentage of the ads you will encounter every day. But there are always people out there looking to dupe consumers and make money in any way that they can. Here are some examples of deceptive and unethical advertising practices and scams that you need to look out for.

Hidden Fees

    In this example, the advertising is not fully disclosing the true cost of the item. You may see an ad for a computer or tablet that says “Only $99!” and you can’t wait to go into the store and buy it or order it online. However, suddenly you are hit with a whole bunch of charges that you were not expecting. In some cases, shipping fees will be extortionate, often costing more than the product itself. Or, you may have to pay handling fees that are excessive. 

    Often, hidden fees can be spotted by the asterisk (*) that accompanies the incredible deal. Guaranteed, there will be a big difference between “Only $99!” and “Only $99!*” That asterisk basically says “hey, this is not the final price, you will have to jump through major hoops or fork over a lot more cash.” So, if you see an asterisk, read the small print carefully. Whether it’s a small item, a car, or even a home, hidden fees are a deceptive way of luring you in. By the time you realize there’s more to pay, it can be too late.

Bait and Switch

    In short, bait and switch is when the advertisement entices you with a product, but makes a significant switch when you go to purchase it.


    For instance, suddenly the laptop you wanted is not in stock, but there is a different one that is lower spec and costs twice as much. Chances are that the original laptop was never in stock, or at least, not for the price advertised. 

    Another example would be advertising a car at the base price, but with all of the top-of-the-line features included in the ad. When you get to the dealership, you have to pay much more to get the car actually shown in the ad. Sometimes, an offer can feel like bait and switch but it’s not. If you want that laptop and it is sold out, but you are offered a similar laptop with a very similar spec, at an almost identical price, that’s perfectly fine. You just missed out on the original deal.

Misleading Claims

    Misleading claims use tricky language to make the consumer believe they are getting one thing when they are in fact getting less (or paying more). A British TV show called The Real Hustle had a great example of this in action. The presenters, who know the ins and outs of so many con games, set up stalls to sell seemingly awesome products at cheap prices.

    At no time do the hustlers break the law by making claims that are untrue, but the verbiage leads people to believe they are buying something way better than they’re actually getting. One of the cruelest was advertising a DIY model plane for a price that seemed like a steal. Things like “easy to assemble” and “it really flies” were on the box. But inside...

it was just a blank sheet of paper, with a set of instructions on how to make a paper plane. Did they break the law? No. Did they deceive? Yes. 

Ambiguous or “Best Case Scenario” Photography

    Another way of cheating people is to take photographs of the product being sold, but in a way that makes them seem way better than they are. Shady hotels have often used this technique to make the rooms look bigger, by setting up the camera in the corner of the room and using a fisheye lens.

    Food photography can suffer from the “best case scenario” photography. If you have ever ordered a burger from a fast food place, you will know this well. The burger on the menu is perfect. It’s thick, juicy, 4 inches high, and looks incredible. But the burger you receive, while it may have the same ingredients, is a sad interpretation of that image. The bun is flat, the burger is a mess, ketchup and mustard are pouring out of the sides.

    This is something we accept as consumers because we know the burger in the photograph was assembled by expert designers and food artists, over the course of many hours, whereas the poor kitchen hand has to throw your burger together in a few seconds to meet your time demands. But, don’t take that to mean you can never complain about this kind of photography. If you buy something that is clearly of poorer quality than the item shown in the picture, you can demand a refund. 

(Adapted from www.thebalancecareers.com, February 02, 2019)


According to the article, deceptive advertisements are practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. It means that:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795063 Inglês

4 Types of Deceptive Advertising


By Apryl Duncan


    Deceptive advertising is officially defined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as “practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. Specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations. 

    However, it’s important to note that deceptive advertising does not represent the entire industry, and makes up a very small percentage of the ads you will encounter every day. But there are always people out there looking to dupe consumers and make money in any way that they can. Here are some examples of deceptive and unethical advertising practices and scams that you need to look out for.

Hidden Fees

    In this example, the advertising is not fully disclosing the true cost of the item. You may see an ad for a computer or tablet that says “Only $99!” and you can’t wait to go into the store and buy it or order it online. However, suddenly you are hit with a whole bunch of charges that you were not expecting. In some cases, shipping fees will be extortionate, often costing more than the product itself. Or, you may have to pay handling fees that are excessive. 

    Often, hidden fees can be spotted by the asterisk (*) that accompanies the incredible deal. Guaranteed, there will be a big difference between “Only $99!” and “Only $99!*” That asterisk basically says “hey, this is not the final price, you will have to jump through major hoops or fork over a lot more cash.” So, if you see an asterisk, read the small print carefully. Whether it’s a small item, a car, or even a home, hidden fees are a deceptive way of luring you in. By the time you realize there’s more to pay, it can be too late.

Bait and Switch

    In short, bait and switch is when the advertisement entices you with a product, but makes a significant switch when you go to purchase it.


    For instance, suddenly the laptop you wanted is not in stock, but there is a different one that is lower spec and costs twice as much. Chances are that the original laptop was never in stock, or at least, not for the price advertised. 

    Another example would be advertising a car at the base price, but with all of the top-of-the-line features included in the ad. When you get to the dealership, you have to pay much more to get the car actually shown in the ad. Sometimes, an offer can feel like bait and switch but it’s not. If you want that laptop and it is sold out, but you are offered a similar laptop with a very similar spec, at an almost identical price, that’s perfectly fine. You just missed out on the original deal.

Misleading Claims

    Misleading claims use tricky language to make the consumer believe they are getting one thing when they are in fact getting less (or paying more). A British TV show called The Real Hustle had a great example of this in action. The presenters, who know the ins and outs of so many con games, set up stalls to sell seemingly awesome products at cheap prices.

    At no time do the hustlers break the law by making claims that are untrue, but the verbiage leads people to believe they are buying something way better than they’re actually getting. One of the cruelest was advertising a DIY model plane for a price that seemed like a steal. Things like “easy to assemble” and “it really flies” were on the box. But inside...

it was just a blank sheet of paper, with a set of instructions on how to make a paper plane. Did they break the law? No. Did they deceive? Yes. 

Ambiguous or “Best Case Scenario” Photography

    Another way of cheating people is to take photographs of the product being sold, but in a way that makes them seem way better than they are. Shady hotels have often used this technique to make the rooms look bigger, by setting up the camera in the corner of the room and using a fisheye lens.

    Food photography can suffer from the “best case scenario” photography. If you have ever ordered a burger from a fast food place, you will know this well. The burger on the menu is perfect. It’s thick, juicy, 4 inches high, and looks incredible. But the burger you receive, while it may have the same ingredients, is a sad interpretation of that image. The bun is flat, the burger is a mess, ketchup and mustard are pouring out of the sides.

    This is something we accept as consumers because we know the burger in the photograph was assembled by expert designers and food artists, over the course of many hours, whereas the poor kitchen hand has to throw your burger together in a few seconds to meet your time demands. But, don’t take that to mean you can never complain about this kind of photography. If you buy something that is clearly of poorer quality than the item shown in the picture, you can demand a refund. 

(Adapted from www.thebalancecareers.com, February 02, 2019)


Among the examples of deceptive advertising described in the text there are:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795064 Inglês

4 Types of Deceptive Advertising


By Apryl Duncan


    Deceptive advertising is officially defined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as “practices that have been found misleading or deceptive. Specific cases include false oral or written representations, misleading price claims, sales of hazardous or systematically defective products or services without adequate disclosures, failure to disclose information regarding pyramid sales, use of bait and switch techniques, failure to perform promised services, and failure to meet warranty obligations. 

    However, it’s important to note that deceptive advertising does not represent the entire industry, and makes up a very small percentage of the ads you will encounter every day. But there are always people out there looking to dupe consumers and make money in any way that they can. Here are some examples of deceptive and unethical advertising practices and scams that you need to look out for.

Hidden Fees

    In this example, the advertising is not fully disclosing the true cost of the item. You may see an ad for a computer or tablet that says “Only $99!” and you can’t wait to go into the store and buy it or order it online. However, suddenly you are hit with a whole bunch of charges that you were not expecting. In some cases, shipping fees will be extortionate, often costing more than the product itself. Or, you may have to pay handling fees that are excessive. 

    Often, hidden fees can be spotted by the asterisk (*) that accompanies the incredible deal. Guaranteed, there will be a big difference between “Only $99!” and “Only $99!*” That asterisk basically says “hey, this is not the final price, you will have to jump through major hoops or fork over a lot more cash.” So, if you see an asterisk, read the small print carefully. Whether it’s a small item, a car, or even a home, hidden fees are a deceptive way of luring you in. By the time you realize there’s more to pay, it can be too late.

Bait and Switch

    In short, bait and switch is when the advertisement entices you with a product, but makes a significant switch when you go to purchase it.


    For instance, suddenly the laptop you wanted is not in stock, but there is a different one that is lower spec and costs twice as much. Chances are that the original laptop was never in stock, or at least, not for the price advertised. 

    Another example would be advertising a car at the base price, but with all of the top-of-the-line features included in the ad. When you get to the dealership, you have to pay much more to get the car actually shown in the ad. Sometimes, an offer can feel like bait and switch but it’s not. If you want that laptop and it is sold out, but you are offered a similar laptop with a very similar spec, at an almost identical price, that’s perfectly fine. You just missed out on the original deal.

Misleading Claims

    Misleading claims use tricky language to make the consumer believe they are getting one thing when they are in fact getting less (or paying more). A British TV show called The Real Hustle had a great example of this in action. The presenters, who know the ins and outs of so many con games, set up stalls to sell seemingly awesome products at cheap prices.

    At no time do the hustlers break the law by making claims that are untrue, but the verbiage leads people to believe they are buying something way better than they’re actually getting. One of the cruelest was advertising a DIY model plane for a price that seemed like a steal. Things like “easy to assemble” and “it really flies” were on the box. But inside...

it was just a blank sheet of paper, with a set of instructions on how to make a paper plane. Did they break the law? No. Did they deceive? Yes. 

Ambiguous or “Best Case Scenario” Photography

    Another way of cheating people is to take photographs of the product being sold, but in a way that makes them seem way better than they are. Shady hotels have often used this technique to make the rooms look bigger, by setting up the camera in the corner of the room and using a fisheye lens.

    Food photography can suffer from the “best case scenario” photography. If you have ever ordered a burger from a fast food place, you will know this well. The burger on the menu is perfect. It’s thick, juicy, 4 inches high, and looks incredible. But the burger you receive, while it may have the same ingredients, is a sad interpretation of that image. The bun is flat, the burger is a mess, ketchup and mustard are pouring out of the sides.

    This is something we accept as consumers because we know the burger in the photograph was assembled by expert designers and food artists, over the course of many hours, whereas the poor kitchen hand has to throw your burger together in a few seconds to meet your time demands. But, don’t take that to mean you can never complain about this kind of photography. If you buy something that is clearly of poorer quality than the item shown in the picture, you can demand a refund. 

(Adapted from www.thebalancecareers.com, February 02, 2019)


The phrasal verbs make up, fork over, lure (someone) in, miss out and set up,all boldfaced in the text, mean, respectively:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795065 Inglês
The following advertisements are examples of which deceptive practices, respectively?
Imagem associada para resolução da questão

Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795066 Inglês

a1db3714ad4758a8b95e.png (691×220)


In the comic strip above, Calvin becomes upset because:

Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795067 História
Quando tratamos da civilização grega na época clássica, encontramos nomes que são considerados expoentes no estudo da História. Sobre o assunto, leia os trechos abaixo e depois identifique, respectivamente, a quem devemos relacioná-los:
Considerado o ‘Pai da História’, foi bem mais um agradável narrador do que um historiador, demasiado inclinado a longas digressões, e aparentemente dócil às narrativas fantasiosas de seus informadores, mas tratou no seu conjunto do grande problema das Guerras Médicas(relações entre gregos e bárbaros).
(Paul Petit. História Antiga.)
Estadista malogrado, exilado, consagrou-se à história da Guerra do Peloponeso, cuja importância parece ter percebido bem logo, o que não é pequeno mérito. Criticando seus predecessores, elimina o maravilhoso e o sobrenatural e coloca a psicologia humana no centro do real, que torna inteligível mediante a demonstração do encadeamento das causas e dos acontecimentos.
(Paul Petit. História Antiga.)
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795068 História
Palco de momentos históricos, como a coroação de Henrique VI da Inglaterra durante a Guerra dos Cem Anos e da coroação de Napoleão Bonaparte, em 2/12/1804 como imperador da França, a Catedral de Notre Dame de Paris foi atingida, em 15/4/2019, por um violento incêndio.
A Catedral de Notre Dame apresenta como estilo dominante o(a):
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795069 Conhecimentos Gerais
Leonardo da Vinci era um mestre com diferentes habilidades. Muitos o conhecem como o artista que pintou Mona Lisa. Mas ele também era um grande engenheiro, inventor e cientista. Quinhentos anos após a morte de Leonardo da Vinci, restam apenas 20 obras comprovadamente pintadas por ele. Mas seus talentos foram além da arte e têm impacto até hoje. Da Vinci certa vez dissecou o coração de um idoso que morrera aos 100 anos. Acabou fazendo a primeira descrição conhecida da doença coronariana. Hoje essa é considerada uma das causas mais comuns de morte no mundo.
(bbc.com/portuguese/geral 2/5/2019)
Assinale a alternativa que apresente, respectivamente, uma das obras pintadas por Da Vinci, bem como um dos conhecimentos cultivados no Renascimento Cultural que ele contribuiu para desenvolver:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795070 História

    Três monarcas governaram Portugal durante o século XVIII. O longo reinado de Dom João V cobriu a primeira metade do século, durante a qual fluíram grandes riquezas para Lisboa, vindas dos territórios brasileiros, a ‘vaca leiteira’ de Portugal, como tão pitorescamente descreveu o professor Charles Boxer o papel da América Portuguesa nesse período. Em 1750 Dom João V foi sucedido por seu filho Dom José I, cujo reinado se assinalou pela longa predominância do Marques de Pombal nos assuntos de Estado e pelo reinado da devota, e mais tarde louca, Dona Maria I, que sucedeu ao seu pai em 1777.

(Kenneth Maxwell. Marques de Pombal: paradoxo do Iluminismo)


A partir da leitura do texto e tendo em conta a relação entre a política de Marques de Pombal e o Brasil, assinale a alternativa que apresente a grande riqueza que fluía para Portugal levada do território brasileiro, bem como uma medida da administração pombalina com impacto na exploração de tal riqueza:

Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795071 História
A cafeicultura, nas regiões pioneiras do oeste de São Paulo, estava em franca expansão e demandava maiores contingentes de trabalhadores rurais. Os fazendeiros, diante do problema, recorreram à imigração, trazendo, a partir da segunda metade do século XIX, milhares de estrangeiros para trabalhar nos cafezais. Foi desenvolvida uma iniciativa que consistia em custear, a título de antecipação dos rendimentos, o transporte de trabalhadores europeus até as fazendas, bem como sustentá-los e as suas famílias nos primeiros tempos de sua permanência na propriedade. Assim que instalados, os imigrantes deviam dar início aos trabalhos, cultivando café e gêneros de subsistência e, dos resultados com suas lavouras, retinham 1/3 dos lucros, entregando o restante ao fazendeiro para amortizar a dívida inicial.

(Cláudio Vicentino e Gianpaolo Dorigo. História do Brasil.)
A iniciativa descrita no texto deve ser relacionada com:


Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795072 História
      Em Berlim, os combates decisivos têm lugar em janeiro de 1919.     Durante vários dias as metralhadoras crepitam em Berlim. As tropas governamentais distribuem até armas aos civis que se apresentam como voluntários. Viva o governo, gritam grupos oficiais. Certas ruas são cercadas aos transeuntes. Travam-se verdadeiras batalhas, a cidade é esquadrinhada pelas patrulhas, multidões de curiosos acorrem ao espetáculo e são tomadas de pânico quando balas silvam ao seu redor. As fachadas são crivadas de projéteis.     Por vezes, especialmente nos bairros operários, homens e mulheres são empurrados, com as mãos sobre as cabeças, por escoltas de soldados.
(Lionel Richard. A Vida Cotidiana da República de Weimar)
O texto deve ser relacionado diretamente com:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795073 História

Encerrada a Primeira Guerra Mundial em 1918, para surpresa dos diplomatas europeus, Wilson viajou ao Velho Mundo a fim de participar das discussões da paz ocorridas na Conferência de Paris (1919).

Na composição da delegação norte- -americana, que acompanhou o presidente à Conferência de Paris, não havia um único representante do Partido Republicano ou do Senado, o que constituía erro imperdoável.

(Aquino, Jesus, Oscar. História das Sociedades Americanas)


A situação tratada no texto teve como efeito nos Estados Unidos:

Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795074 História
Após várias décadas, a chamada República Velha mostrava sinais de desgaste, o que levou a um cenário de instabilidade política, social e econômica. Para tratar de um quadro sensível, o último presidente brasileiro da República Velha lançou a Lei Aníbal de Toledo, também conhecida como Lei Celerada. Assinale a alternativa correta sobre a mencionada lei:
Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795075 História
Em 1/9/1969, há exatos 50 anos, nos chamados anos de chumbo, o jornal Folha de São Paulo estampava em manchete de primeira página:

Com trombose cerebral, Costa e Silva se afasta

O jornal acrescentava: Pouco antes das 22 horas deste domingo 31/8, a Agência Nacional informou o país, em cadeia de rádio e televisão que o presidente Arthur da Costa e Silva, acometido de trombose cerebral, está temporariamente impedido de chefiar o governo.
Reunido no Rio de Janeiro, o Alto Comando das Forças Armadas editou o Ato Institucional No. 12, que teve por efeito:

Alternativas
Ano: 2019 Banca: ESPM Órgão: ESPM Prova: ESPM - 2019 - ESPM - Vestibular 2020/1 - RJ |
Q1795076 Atualidades
Um dos temas mais debatidos na pauta da política interna brasileira, em 2019, foi o da Reforma da Previdência Social no Brasil. Sob a alegação de um desequilíbrio demográfico decorrente do aumento acentuado da população idosa, tem sido apontada a necessidade de reforma do Sistema Previdenciário, que seria deficitário. Nos últimos 20 anos, o país já passou por duas reformas praticadas por meio de propostas de emenda à Constituição, as chamadas PEC. Em 1998, na presidência de Fernando Henrique Cardoso, o governo federal mudou as regras previdenciárias com a PEC No. 20, instituindo:
Alternativas
Respostas
41: D
42: E
43: B
44: C
45: A
46: B
47: C
48: A
49: E
50: B
51: D
52: B
53: C
54: A
55: E
56: C
57: B
58: E
59: D
60: A